I admit I am somewhat schizophrenic about Glenn Greenwald praising him one minute and questioning him the next but he seems an odd mix of genuine concern about civil liberties and still thinking the CATO institute is pretty good (he tweeted about a drug conference there the other day).
Nonetheless this lecture and Q&A is very good. In the lecture part he does cover some old ground so if you're pressed for time skipping to the Q&A bit at around the 50 minute mark may be worthwhile.
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Monarchy isn't about freedom
If I'd been blogging a few months back I'd have probably highlighted that civil liberties experts in the UK believe the Royal wedding will be used as template for stifling protest as "austerity measures" begin to bite. Here is a summary of how counter terrorism laws are being used to protect the elite from any acts of dissent on their special day, all without a credible terror threat.
Nonetheless even with all this policing and denying of civil liberties I would not be surprised if a small group of "anarchists" do something bad that the media can focus on to demonise the growing protest movement and legitimise calls for further police powers.
The negative effects of the Royal Wedding don't just fall on the UK though, several nations within the Common still retain the Queen as their head of state including Canada and Australia. Australia, for the privilege of maintaining a hereditary dictator, albeit a relatively toothless one, as their head of state must trade away their right to free speech it appears. The awesome Chaser boys have been forbidden by the Royals to commentate on the royal wedding because
Dissent isn't tolerated even if its on the other side of the world.
Nonetheless even with all this policing and denying of civil liberties I would not be surprised if a small group of "anarchists" do something bad that the media can focus on to demonise the growing protest movement and legitimise calls for further police powers.
The negative effects of the Royal Wedding don't just fall on the UK though, several nations within the Common still retain the Queen as their head of state including Canada and Australia. Australia, for the privilege of maintaining a hereditary dictator, albeit a relatively toothless one, as their head of state must trade away their right to free speech it appears. The awesome Chaser boys have been forbidden by the Royals to commentate on the royal wedding because
The broadcast agreement under which the ABC takes the wedding telecast forbids its use in "any drama, comedy, satirical or similar entertainment program or content."
Dissent isn't tolerated even if its on the other side of the world.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
UK Police shut down prominent opponent.
Fit Watch used to provide criticism and oversight over FITs (Forward Intelligence Teams) essentially watching the watchers by taking photographs of the police taking photographs of people at protests and suchlike. So as is the way of things they were shut down. The police were able to do so without a court order or anything else.
Dissent and opposition to what the police wants is naughty so just don't do it ok?
Dissent and opposition to what the police wants is naughty so just don't do it ok?
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Just in case you thought COINTELPRO had stopped...
Sure during the 2008 Republican National Convention we saw clear evidence of politically motivated suppression but that was under Bush, in spite of COINTELPRO officially ending in 1971 (lol), and with Obama in power everything is fine.
Of course not. This is part of a wider pattern of suppression of groups the US Government doesn't like, such as the judicial harassment of the guy who left water for Mexican immigrants. Sure it go overturned but after much stress and cost for him and a general discouragement to others who might consider offering basic humanitarian aid such as that. While the usual media disregard for these events is contributory probably the biggest problem in regards to these tactics is the widespread belief that law = morality and the general assumption that police are only honest servants of the people. With that mindset it is easy to just assume these suppression tactics were honest police work.
This culture of fear means good people fear to do anything and less well informed citizens think those trying to do good are criminal.
Of course not. This is part of a wider pattern of suppression of groups the US Government doesn't like, such as the judicial harassment of the guy who left water for Mexican immigrants. Sure it go overturned but after much stress and cost for him and a general discouragement to others who might consider offering basic humanitarian aid such as that. While the usual media disregard for these events is contributory probably the biggest problem in regards to these tactics is the widespread belief that law = morality and the general assumption that police are only honest servants of the people. With that mindset it is easy to just assume these suppression tactics were honest police work.
This culture of fear means good people fear to do anything and less well informed citizens think those trying to do good are criminal.
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
America: Land of the unfree!
Now sure everyone knows theres all sorts of things the dupes of the Tea Party following the corporate agenda of their billionaire masters should be getting angry about lots more important things than people not reading Ayn Rand (because if they did there wouldn't be a Black president!) but seldom do you such a simple illustration of just how far off the mark they are:
hint: look at the bottom line of the graph
This graph comes from an editorial by an American living in Britain talking about the culture of taking time off work in the UK and the US. Which brings up the fact once again that Thatcher and Reagan were monsters who completely screwed over the vast majority of the population in every way possible. Its an interesting comparison and reading it as a Briton to an extent gives me that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you're all snug and warm indoors and you look outside and see it raining/snowing. That is to say sure workers rights in Britain are pretty shitty across the board but daaaaamn we're doing better than America.
But anyway, he covers that stuff better than I could, what with him having experience of working in both countries so lets look at something slightly different. The title is slightly more than a play on words but relates to my very limited knowledge of medieval peasants in Britain and the distinction between ranks of the peasantry. The details aren't particularly interesting or noteworthy but at the start of the feudal period the harshness with which peasants were tied to a particular bit of land varied. (Tying peasants to the land was a very important part of feudalism because until the industrial revolution the wealth of the elite was generated by the land they owned, the more and the better the land you held the more wealthy and powerful you were but that land was only valuable if it was worked, in the early medieval period the population across europe was too small to work all the land so the elites needed ways to keep the lesser sorts working their land.)
Anyway the reason this is important in regards to the plight of Serfs. At the start of the medieval period Serfs pretty much free men, a clear step above villains (the lowest class of peasants, the current meaning of the word derives from when these near slaves got uppity and rebelled against their rightful rulers) who only had slaves and those who lived on the very margins of society to look down upon. However as time went on Serfs became unfree, in the same general position as Villains. This did not mean they were slaves but it did mean their duties and obligations to the owner of the manor they lived upon became more stringent, their property rights weakened and their freedom of movement greatly diminished. Slaves were generally prisoners of war (nowadays they're prisoners of the war on drugs, how things change) or criminals.
This concept of unfreedom is especially salient for all citizens of the west (with Americans being in the vanguard of being shit on). Real wages haven't risen since the early 1980s, civil liberties are being eroded rapidly and other rights are starting to disappear, as we see in America even though holidays are technically available in many jobs people don't feel free to take all the vacation they're technically owed. This of course stems from the loss of another freedom of sorts, the freedom to believe you have long term employment, these days of course no one is secure in their job so they're less free to exercise other rights they technically have. Then there's the manner in which Thatcher and Reagan weakened the unions so workers were even less free to exercise other rights and on and on it goes.
Now its not a one to one match but still it is something one should be very much aware of, the gradual of erosion of rights and freedoms makes it easier to weaken other rights and generally lower the social status of huge chunks of society. People should be as mad and as vocal as the Tea Party are but about radically different things.
hint: look at the bottom line of the graph
This graph comes from an editorial by an American living in Britain talking about the culture of taking time off work in the UK and the US. Which brings up the fact once again that Thatcher and Reagan were monsters who completely screwed over the vast majority of the population in every way possible. Its an interesting comparison and reading it as a Briton to an extent gives me that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you're all snug and warm indoors and you look outside and see it raining/snowing. That is to say sure workers rights in Britain are pretty shitty across the board but daaaaamn we're doing better than America.
But anyway, he covers that stuff better than I could, what with him having experience of working in both countries so lets look at something slightly different. The title is slightly more than a play on words but relates to my very limited knowledge of medieval peasants in Britain and the distinction between ranks of the peasantry. The details aren't particularly interesting or noteworthy but at the start of the feudal period the harshness with which peasants were tied to a particular bit of land varied. (Tying peasants to the land was a very important part of feudalism because until the industrial revolution the wealth of the elite was generated by the land they owned, the more and the better the land you held the more wealthy and powerful you were but that land was only valuable if it was worked, in the early medieval period the population across europe was too small to work all the land so the elites needed ways to keep the lesser sorts working their land.)
Anyway the reason this is important in regards to the plight of Serfs. At the start of the medieval period Serfs pretty much free men, a clear step above villains (the lowest class of peasants, the current meaning of the word derives from when these near slaves got uppity and rebelled against their rightful rulers) who only had slaves and those who lived on the very margins of society to look down upon. However as time went on Serfs became unfree, in the same general position as Villains. This did not mean they were slaves but it did mean their duties and obligations to the owner of the manor they lived upon became more stringent, their property rights weakened and their freedom of movement greatly diminished. Slaves were generally prisoners of war (nowadays they're prisoners of the war on drugs, how things change) or criminals.
This concept of unfreedom is especially salient for all citizens of the west (with Americans being in the vanguard of being shit on). Real wages haven't risen since the early 1980s, civil liberties are being eroded rapidly and other rights are starting to disappear, as we see in America even though holidays are technically available in many jobs people don't feel free to take all the vacation they're technically owed. This of course stems from the loss of another freedom of sorts, the freedom to believe you have long term employment, these days of course no one is secure in their job so they're less free to exercise other rights they technically have. Then there's the manner in which Thatcher and Reagan weakened the unions so workers were even less free to exercise other rights and on and on it goes.
Now its not a one to one match but still it is something one should be very much aware of, the gradual of erosion of rights and freedoms makes it easier to weaken other rights and generally lower the social status of huge chunks of society. People should be as mad and as vocal as the Tea Party are but about radically different things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)